SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

� *104 REGIONAL BOARD RESPONSE (SffTCB/OCC FILE A-1483) -15- PETITION FOR REVIEW OF WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NOS. R5-2002-0083 AND R5-2002-0084 CITY OF STOCKTON REGIONAL WASTEWATER CONTROL FACILITY "68. Order No. R5-2002-0083 includes several effluent limitations purportedly based on the narrative toxicity objective in the Basin Plan, which provides, `All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human,plant, animal, or aquatic life.' Constituents with effluent limitations based on the narrative toxicity objective include chloroform, diazinon, mercury, lindane, endrin aldehyde, DDT, chlorine and ammonia. There is no evidence that discharges of these pollutants causes or contributes to exceedance of the narrative toxicity objective." The effluent limitations for lindane, endrin aldehyde, and DDT were based on the reasonable potential with respect to the organo-chlorine water quality objective,not the narrative toxicity objective. The evidence in the record indicates that chloroform, mercury, chlorine and ammonia cause toxicity at levels present in the discharge. The Regional Board is not required to demonstrate a precise causal connection between the discharge and the exceedance; there need only be a reasonable potential that the discharge is contributing to an exceedance. See American bran & Steel Institute v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979, at 1000. "69. The effluent limitations based on the narrative toxicity objective are derived from unadopted criteria and result in new water quality objectives that have not been promulgated in accordance with Porter-Cologne, including Water Code sections 13241 and 13263, CEQA or the APA." The Regional Board adopted the effluent limitations in the manner expressly authorized by the Clean Water Act regulations and the Basin Plan. See 40 CFR 122.44(d), Basin Plan 1II-8.00 and IV-17.00. The Regional Board is not required to consider the factors in Water Code section 13241 in implementing existing water quality objectives. See e.g.,Hampson v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 472, State Board Order WQ 73-4, Order WQ 77-16, and Order WQ 94-8. The Regional Board is not required to comply with CEQA with respect to application of the water quality objectives since it is not adopting new objectives. The Regional Board complied with CEQA to the extent required in adopting NPDES permits. The APA does not apply to the adoption of an NPDES permit. "70. In adopting new effluent limitations for these constituents, the RWQCB failed to comply with or adhere to applicable procedures far determining effluent limitations, including the procedures for implementing the narrative toxicity objective." As described above, the Regional Board adopted the effluent limitations in the manner expressly authorized by the Clean Water Act regulations and the Basin Plan. See 40 CFR 122.44(d), Basin Plan III-8.00 and IV-17.00. "71. The effluent limitations for constituents based on the narrative toxicity objective are based on a new interpretation of the narrative toxicity objective that has not been promulgated in accordance with the APA." As described above, the Regional Board adopted the effluent limitations in the manner expressly authorized by the Clean Water Act regulations and the Basin Plan. See 40 CFR 122.44(d), Basin Plan III-8.00 and IV-17.00. With regards to the narrative toxicity objective, the Regional Board was required to apply one or more of several methods authorized by USEPA in 40 CFR 122.44(d). The Regional